Media at Its Worst
Coaxial Cable (Wikimedia)
So, I’m trying to find out something about what’s going on in Iran, and on CNN I can watch a rerun of Larry King interviewing several gentlemen without shirtsleeves who apparently assemble choppers. On Fox Mike Huckabee is trying to explain why Jesus hates credit card relief. MSNBC is rerunning something about a prison in New Mexico. CNBC is evaluating whether college students should be able to afford Chanel tote bags.
Whenever I find myself talking about new media to skeptics of an older generation who worry that the standards online are too debased, I try to remind people that the real debasing came with the rise of multi-channel cable news. In terms of the Iranian elections, the world’s top newspapers have the people on the ground reporting the main facts, and there’s lots of smart analysis from legitimate experts all over the web, but on television if it can’t be captured by two talking heads debating each other it’s like it never happened.
45 Responses to “Media at Its Worst”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Farley obviously wasn’t using Monster cables, otherwise the news coverage he encountered would have been much clearer, broader, deeper, and richly satisfying.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Silly Farley: he hasn’t worked out that “cable news” in the US isn’t actually about providing news over cable. (It may break into scheduled programming for live coverage of Bibi’s speech, since Wolf Blitzer can be on hand to provide Expert Bearded Analysis.)
CNN International is covering it, of course.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
The sad thing is that real 24-hour news channels could be great for this sort of story, but since they are actually 24-hour niche entertainment channels, that isn’t happening.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
And, of course, pseudonymous in nc beat me to the same point.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
It’s the weekend.
Not an excuse, but the reason.
To bring in the anchors/analysts/producers means inconveniencing the staff and costs more money. They figure it’s not worth it.
They are of course just sealing their own demise. Six years ago, I dropped news magazines. Two years ago, though I hold on to my LATimes/NYTimes subscriptions, I don’t really really them for news. Last year, I realized cable news was second rate in covering the election. Now a huge foreign story – Iran – is far better covered by blogs in the US than the supposedly leader in world-wide news coverage (CNN).
I’m curious what CNN International (which mainly has different programming than CNN most of the day) is doing, if they are doing any better.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
We live in northwest Ohio…like other readers, my daughter and I clicked through CNN, MSNBC and Headline News and found nothing. Fortunately our local cable company carries Al Jazeera English which was providing full coverage that was non-inflamatory and comprehensive.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Isn’t this more a function of how bad American cable news is with international news, rather than cable per se? As Molly notes, Al Jazeera probably has full coverage; I wouldn’t be surprised if the BBC covers this pretty well.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Whenever I find myself talking about new media to skeptics of an older generation who worry that the standards online are too debased, I try to remind people that the real debasing came with the rise of multi-channel cable news. In terms of the Iranian elections, the world’s top newspapers have the people on the ground reporting the main facts, and there’s lots of smart analysis from legitimate experts all over the web, but on television if it can’t be captured by two talking heads debating each other it’s like it never happened.
Two talking heads debating? Mr. Yglesias must be smoking lefty luckies. He really means yelling at each other.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I saw some Iranian expert on C-span for half an hour this morning.
Hey, it’s not nothing.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Media is terrible, no question. cnn.con ran a feature stiry a few days ago abotu Chastity Bono getting a sex change operation!
You will also not see the film clip of Sotomayor stating that she was a poster child for affirmative action, having been admitted to Princeton with lower admission test scores than her classmates.
I wonder how the more qualified person whose spot she took feels about her nomination?
June 14th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“Farley obviously wasn’t using Monster cables, otherwise the news coverage he encountered would have been much clearer, broader, deeper, and richly satisfying.”
I don’t think the issue here has anything to do with whether or not it’s a Monster™ brand cable.
More to the point, the cable is:
1) Badly frayed
2) Unconnected to any output
3) Being attacked by the first few letters of the alphabet
Solving these problems is likely to get you a broader spectrum of cable news viewpoints displayed on your ruler.
——
Any while we’re on the topic, how cool is it that Verizon is actually running optical fiber to the home at prices that generally beat coax? The last mile has been conquered.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
In terms of the Iranian elections, the world’s top newspapers have the people on the ground reporting the main facts…
It’s too bad that in the near future, most newspapers won’t be able to afford sending reporters abroad. Want to see a real #mediafail? It’s coming.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I’m old enough to remember when CNN used to do real reporting of the news. That was before Fox and MSNBC came along. Whenever I travel and am able to catch CNN International, I get a taste of what CNN used to be. It’s sad.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Re Blurtman
How about a link to the Sotomayor film clip. Since she finished second in her class upon her graduation from Princeton, her test scores at admission appear to be poorly predictive.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Re Blurtman
By the way, George W. Bushs’ SAT scores were at least 100 points lower then the lower end of his entering class at Yale.
June 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
SLC,
For the clips on Sotomayor, if you Google “Sotomayor affirmative action baby” you will find quite few links.
Here is her quote:
“I am a product of affirmative action,” she said. “I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.”
She said that using “traditional numbers” from test scores, “it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted.”
So first, Sotomayor has taken a more qualified student’s position at Princeton. Could have been the daughter of a factory worker who studied her ass off to get in, but whose forefathers may have come from the north side of the Pyrenees, versus the south.
Second, as I have stated here before, poor and middle class students who do not fit into a “minority” category get the shaft in this scenario. This is what Sotomayor is proud of.
And the sons of the Bushes and Kennedys can get into any school they want.
Clearly many of those denied admission to Princeton and Yale could have done well in the program. There is a finite number of admitted students.
June 14th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Blurtman’s putative victim got into Penn or Yale and did just fine. Blurtman can’t bring himself to say what he really means: Mediocre white kids need to get every ounce of white privilege before minorities are even considered, regardless of merit.
June 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
“On FOX Mike Huckabee is trying to explain why Jesus hates credit card relief.”
Got a link? I would like to hear the rationale. Is it because breaking people financially and the resultant widespread bankruptcies would create a whole new subset of Americans? The former middle-class?
Such a group would no longer have to worry about the “eye of the needle” quandary. For sure, Heaven’s leadership would have a larger pool of souls to choose from.
Huckabee. Super-genius.
June 14th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
jimbo Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Blurtman’s putative victim got into Penn or Yale and did just fine. Blurtman can’t bring himself to say what he really means: Mediocre white kids need to get every ounce of white privilege before minorities are even considered, regardless of merit.
*****
There is no basis in fact for your statement. It is a fact that given a finite admission class, that Sotomayor had taken a more qualified student’s position, and she apparently is proud of this. There is not an unlimited number of graduate school admission slots. Some people who were discriminated against via affirmative action did not have the opportunity to attend graduate school because admission was denied in spite of superior qualifications. This is not something to take pride in, unless you are a rascist.
June 14th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Re Blurtman
And by that same argument, George W. Bush also took the place of a more qualified candidate when he was admitted to Yale, based on the fact that his father was an alumnus.
Mr. Blurtman also neglects to mention that Judge Sotomayor finished second in her class; what are the odds that the hypothetical student whose place she took would have done as well?
By the way, just for the information of Mr. Blurtman, who is obviously totally unfamiliar with the admission policies of Ivy League schools, historically, all of them have attempted to achieve some geographical balance of their freshman classes by admitting students from outside the North East who scored lower on SATs but showed promise and thus took the place of a graduate of the Bronx School of Science who scored higher. Not to mention the favoritism of the sons (and daughters) of alumni, like G. W. Bush.
June 14th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Meanwhile, on CNN Headline News they had Nancy Grace– and no news. Great rant, I was ready to throw things at the TV myself.
June 14th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Re Blurtman
And by that same argument, George W. Bush also took the place of a more qualified candidate when he was admitted to Yale, based on the fact that his father was an alumnus.
*********
Yes, and that is wrong, too. As I have stated, poor and middle class non-minority students get the shaft under affirmative action, whether for the wealthy or otherwise.
——–
Mr. Blurtman also neglects to mention that Judge Sotomayor finished second in her class; what are the odds that the hypothetical student whose place she took would have done as well?
**********
Considering that by Sotomayor’s admission the hypothetical student would have had better admission test scores and comparable grades, probably decent odds. Perhaps the person who was denied equal opportunity would have done even better.
And so by your logic, Lindsey Graham’s achievements in life should justify past discrimination against blacks re: admission to the University of South Carolina? Who is to say if the black student denied admission would have achieved as much as Lindsey?
——–
By the way, just for the information of Mr. Blurtman, who is obviously totally unfamiliar with the admission policies of Ivy League schools, historically, all of them have attempted to achieve some geographical balance of their freshman classes by admitting students from outside the North East
*********
And what does that have to do with discrimination based upon race?
June 14th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Blurtman, although you will normally find me arguing the other way, it this case the proof is in the pudding: test scores were a poor predictor of performance: almost every single person with higher test scores than Sotomayor had performed worse than she did at Princeton. Drive matters, and the less driven person with higher test scores who went to Yale or Columbia probably had a more mediocre performance and ultimate career than Sotomayor did. Though I’m sure he turned out fine in life.
June 14th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Tyro Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Blurtman, although you will normally find me arguing the other way, it this case the proof is in the pudding: test scores were a poor predictor of performance: almost every single person with higher test scores than Sotomayor had performed worse than she did at Princeton. Drive matters, and the less driven person with higher test scores who went to Yale or Columbia probably had a more mediocre performance and ultimate career than Sotomayor did. Though I’m sure he turned out fine in life.
**********
Tyro,
This is not an argument about whether admission scores are a good predictor of success. This is an argument about equal opportunity and race/ethnicity based discrimination. By Sotomayor’s own admission, she was admitted to Princeton with inferior qualifications because of affirmative action. She took the place of someone who had better quaifications. That person was denied the opportunity to have a chance to enrool at Princeton, so one will never know how he/she might have done there.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Blurtman, people are not admitted to college as a reward for having good test scores. People are admitted to college because the college feels that they will succeed and they use their test scores as part of an indication of whether they will. By all accounts, Sotomayor was an AA success story– an example where the overall picture indicated a person who would be highly successful, even if a few test scores seemed lower than those with a better economic and academic background.
Look at Sotomayor’s classmates who had higher test scores than she did– all of them proved to be inferior students to Sotomayor. Given that, why should Princeton have admitted them rather than go in search of more Sotomayors?
June 14th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
If MattY were a more subtle thinker, he could have used his graphic to compare the extravagant and fraudulent performance claims of exotic cable from Monster and other snake-oil salesmen to the extravagant and fraudulent claims of information content made by cable news.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Drive matters, and the less driven person with higher test scores who went to Yale or Columbia probably had a more mediocre performance and ultimate career than Sotomayor did. Though I’m sure he turned out fine in life.
********
How do you know that the person with better qualifications than Sotomayor whose spot at Princeton she took was less driven? That is a preposterous claim.
When applying affirmative action to grad school admissions, there are not an umlimited amount of spots in graduate schools. When one is denied admission to grad school, sometimes the outcome is not attending grad school, and not just going to a different school if you were unfairly denied admission into one program.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Re Blurtman
So by Mr. Blurtmans’ argument, it’s perfectly all right to discriminate against poor white students in favor of wealthy white students. And it’s perfectly OK to discriminate against graduates from the Bronx School of Science in favor of students from Fargo, ND.
By he way, in order for the student whose place Judge Sotomayor got under the Blurtman scenario to do better then the Judge did, he/she would have had to place first in the class. Mr. Blurtman is going to have a hard time selling that one.
Incidentally, the Ivy league schools are not the only ones to discriminate on the basis of geography. The public University of Virginia in Charlottesville also discriminates by having a quota for students from Northern Virginia that it will admit. A lot of students from Northern Virginia High Schools are not admitted in favor of students with lower SAT scores from elsewhere in the state. But I suppose that’s perfectly all right with Mr. Blurtman. He only gets bent out of shape when non-white people are given a break.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
By the way, just for Mr. Blurtmans’ information, a lot a students with lower SAT scores then I had did much better in college, probably because I was lazy.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
FWIW, I stumbled on a < $100 solution to the absence of decent cable news by accident while I was looking for a media extender to watch the gazillion movie on my ‘puter on the TV.
It’s called a VuNow Pod (http://vunow.com)and the unexpected bonus is that it comes preprogrammed with the web feeds from a whole bunch of internet broadcasters, including AlJazeera, BBC, Sky News (Murdoch in GB), EuroNews, CNN-Europe & -Asia, etc.
The box has been a little buggy (brand-new tech), but they’re constantly flashing it with upgrades, and each one makes it more stable – to the point now where I’m quite satisfied with it now. I’m not plugging this box in particular – I’m guessing there are others that do similar stuff, and maybe some of them are better. I’m just saying that for 99 bucks, Comcast (and CNN and all their American media cohorts) can go suck eggs.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Tyro Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Blurtman, people are not admitted to college as a reward for having good test scores. People are admitted to college because the college feels that they will succeed and they use their test scores as part of an indication of whether they will. By all accounts, Sotomayor was an AA success story– an example where the overall picture indicated a person who would be highly successful, even if a few test scores seemed lower than those with a better economic and academic background.
**********
You are making grand assumptions that are not based in reality. Sotomayor was not admitted under a program of affirmative action that helped all disadvantaged people. She was admitted under a program that was a race based program. As such, “non-minority” applicants including those from the poor and middle classes were denied equal opportunity based upon their race.
———
why should Princeton have admitted them rather than go in search of more Sotomayors?
**********
They perhaps should have if they could do so in a fair manner and apply this new criteria to everyone irrespective of race or ethnicity. Sotomayor benefited from a race based admission process. Again, can we say that the accomplishments of Lindsey Graham justify past discriminatory admission practices at the University of South Carolina?
June 14th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
SLC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Re Blurtman
So by Mr. Blurtmans’ argument, it’s perfectly all right to discriminate against poor white students in favor of wealthy white students.
*********
No, please re-read my comments. I stated that this is wrong. I have stated that this is affirmative action for the wealthy and it is wrong.
———–
By he way, in order for the student whose place Judge Sotomayor got under the Blurtman scenario to do better then the Judge did, he/she would have had to place first in the class. Mr. Blurtman is going to have a hard time selling that one.
**********
They were denied the opportunity to have even tried. So discrimination is OK as long as you do better than the person who you denied equal oportunity to? And how do we test this since the person who was denied admission to Princeton never had a chance to show what he/she could do?
————
But I suppose that’s perfectly all right with Mr. Blurtman. He only gets bent out of shape when non-white people are given a break
**********
I cannot take up your cause. I am most concerned about racial discrimination and racism.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Tyro’s got it right. If, as blurtman suggests, Sotomayor’s test scores wouldn’t get her in on their own, and she got in through an AA program, AND she obviously excelled and graduated second in her class, then it stands to reason that the policy that pushed the school to look beyond test scores for promising minority candidates was a very good one.
100 years ago, standardized tests for college admission were pioneered by Ivy league schools to identify strong candidates to supplement the mediocre legacies. It certainly helped, at the time, compared to the previous method of simply admitting legacies and a few other members of the upper class. But it’s very far from perfect. At most, test scores are a means to an end, not an objective measure of qualifications. It’s been widely acknowledged that higher SAT scores haven’t had a statistically meaningful relationship to likelihood of success in college. Pretending they’re synonymous with “qualified” is moronic.
June 14th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Re Blrutman
Since Mr. Blurtman keeps evading the question I’ll ask it again. Is it OK for a college or university to discriminate on the basis of geography? Specifically, is it OK for the Un. of Virginia to discriminate against students from Northern Virginia in favor of students with lower SAT scores from Southeastern Virginia? That’s a yes or a no. This might seem particularly egregious in the State of Virginia, considering that only 25% of revenues collected by the state from Northern Virginia are ultimately spent there. We support the rest of the state.
June 14th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Hey Blurtman and SLC: get your own damn blogs, threadjackers.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
SLC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Re Blrutman
Since Mr. Blurtman keeps evading the question I’ll ask it again. Is it OK for a college or university to discriminate on the basis of geography?
******
You’d really be screwed if you were a poor non-minority during Sotomayor’s day from Northern Virginia.
And I guess it was OK to let George W in to Yale with terrrible grades and board scores, because afterall, he became the presidnet of the USA? Not!
June 14th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Tyro’s got it right. If, as blurtman suggests, Sotomayor’s test scores wouldn’t get her in on their own, and she got in through an AA program, AND she obviously excelled and graduated second in her class, then it stands to reason that the policy that pushed the school to look beyond test scores for promising minority candidates was a very good one.
*********
Your logic is faulty on two counts.
1.) The program was based upon race and was therefore race based discrimination. If it pushed the school to look for students with lower board scores irrespective of race, then maybe you would have a valid point, but it did not, and you do not.
2.) Sotomayor is one minority student. Would you argue against the AA program if the average achievement of the admitted minorities was below average? Would you argue for keeping blacks out of southern white only universities if the admitted whites did better academically than the blacks?
3.) Again, you miss the point. Sotomayor herself brought up the issue of low board scores. If it were not a relevant admission criteria, I doubt if she would have brought it up.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Let me get this straight. A Puerto Rican girl from the projects gains admission to elite institutions despite less than stellar standardized test scores, excels academically everywhere she goes, goes on to have an outstanding legal career, and ends up getting nominated to the Supreme Court. And this is supposed to be an argument AGAINST affirmative action and FOR strictly numbers-based admissions?
June 15th, 2009 at 4:25 am
Hey guys, some friendly advice:
If any old troll can roll in here and move the discussion to a topic totally unrelated to the original post because you engage him instantly, then any armchair activist will be able to set part of the agenda at this blog, so please dftt.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Re Blurtman
And once again, Mr. Blurtman evades the question so I’ll ask it again. Let’s put it this way. Is it OK to discriminate against a minority student from Northern Virginia in favor of a Caucasian student from Southeast Virginia with lower SAT scores because of a quota system at UVA for students from Northern Virginia? That’s a yes or a no. Answer the question and stop spinning around it.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:07 am
speaking of quotas, is that where we get the coax pic from? is matt under contract to put a pic on 30% of his posts or something, so he just does a google image search for “cable”? maybe he needs a (mini-) vacation…
blurtman, if you’re arguing against affirmative action, that’s an issue on which i could probably be swayed to your position by a more effective argument. using sotomayor as your poster child isn’t smart though, and i’d say it’s having the exact opposite of the effect intended. try to use someone that didn’t absolutely excel in all academic facets as your example of the evils of aa.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I’m sure Blurtman has a long record of complaining about how GW Bush going to Yale and Harvard was unfair favoritism based on family background. And he’s never vote for someone like that.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:33 am
In defense of CNBC, world news isn’t their primary area of focus. Of course what’s going on is an important story, but since I doubt most of the people at the network have the knowledge required to offer engaging opinions on the developments. It’s therefore not a surprise that the network would choose to stick with what is likely its highest rated program, “The Suze Orman Show.”
The other networks don’t really have that excuse.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Maybe part of the reason is a perceived, or actual, apathy to the events taking place outside of the United States by our own citizens. This attitude is foolish, and the news media are perpetuating it.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
[...] Yglesias sums up my feelings [...]